Upon being asked by the media about his zero experience in academic administration and the possible difficulties he might have to face as a complete outsider in the field of higher education, one of the ad-hoc vice chancellors, who happens to be a former police officer, responded with the precision of a former cop: “I’m a China border specialist, and this university is located near the China border. So my experience will certainly help in running this university smoothly.” He got mortally irritated by the follow up query from the same nagging reporter: “Sir, can you please explain the relation between China border and a university?” The press meet had to suffer a premature demise the moment this unruly question was hurled at the cop turned vice chancellor.

Ironically, the tenure of this accidental administrator also came to a premature closure, through untimely but expected resignation, as soon as he was gheraoed by a group of non-teaching staff members of the university for a couple of days with their professional demands. Thus, he came, he saw, and he failed miserably! Of course this is a stray incident, but it speaks volumes about the possible dangers of running academic institutes by non-academic administrators. It is not that these people are of any less quality or efficiency than a seasoned academic, but the problem primarily lies in the fact that specified jobs always require specific skills.

Also, such jobs demand special disciplining of both the sense and the sensibility. Disaster follows as soon as these basic truths are forcefully undermined by the rulers. One doesn’t have to be an expert to understand why a professor, no matter how deep her/his knowledge of the Constitution or legal affairs of the country is, should not be appointed as the learned judge of a court. Similarly, a former cop or a former judge, no matter how illustrious their careers may have been, must not be appointed as the heads of academic institutes. Though, in the second case, there is a lean possibility of them being considered for the stated post under extraordinary circumstances.

But that it is possible only under extraordinary circumstances shows the abnormality of the process. It is not that the people in power are ignorant of these fundamental truths, but they flamboyantly violate these rules time and again for their narrow political interests. There are multiple reasons behind such administrative flamboyance, the most important of which is the desire and design of establishing political hegemony within a given system. The ongoing conflict between the government of West Bengal and the Governor of the state over the issue of appointment of vice chancellors in the state-aided universities needs to be understood vis-à-vis this design of establishing political hegemony in the field of higher education. Interestingly, these conflicting poles of power sometimes work handin-hand with each other, especially when there is a need for strengthening their common hegemony within a specific field.

Thus, the people of the state at times witness the unfolding of some kind of a curated conflict between these poles. The larger motif behind this staged conflict also needs to be understood well to reach the root of the problem. Education, especially higher education, has always been the bone of contention in the state-Centre relationship in India. The country has witnessed a number of stiff conflicts between the two over the issue of exercising decisive control on higher education in the past.

But none of those conflicts ever reached the height and stature of the current irresolvable conflict in the state of West Bengal. This conflict had created such an administrative cul-de-sac in the universities of West Bengal that the apex court of the country had to invoke Article 142 to play the deus ex machina and bring back as much order and normalcy as possible in those institutes of higher learning. However, the process has given rise to multiple controversies in academia. But since the process is still on, the efficacy and effectiveness of the process must not be judged instantaneously and unwittingly. Another interesting fact in this context is that such conflicts are not restricted to the universities of West Bengal alone.

A number of other states in India, including Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Maharashtra, Bihar and Kerala have either faced or are still facing similar crises in their respective fields of higher education too. The government-governor duel over the issue of appointment of VCs reached such an unsurpassable height in some of these states that they passed new education bills in their state assemblies to replace the governor with either the chief minister or the higher education minister as the head of their state universities.

However, these efforts could not yield the desired result for them due to certain pre-existing constitutional restrictions. But the attitude of both was so adamant in this regard that none of them was ready to initiate any meaningful dialogue with all the stakeholders to resolve the issue. The obvious consequence of this was the unilateral appointment of VCs either by the government or by the governor. Since these were more or less adhoc arrangements, liberty was taken by both to appoint VCs of their personal choice and favour, without considering their qualifications, and even without consulting each other, which is not desirable at all. This led to legal complications and the involvement of the highest court in the country. Interestingly, in most of the cases, all these hullabaloos started storming the field of higher education post the introduction of NEP 2020 which is believed to have been designed to redefine the Indian education system.

A number of academics and educationists have accused this new policy of being too digital-friendly and pro-corporate, which, according to them, may create problems for the poor by taking higher education beyond their reach. However, the supporters of this policy believe it is revolutionary, with the potential of changing the landscape of the Indian higher education system into an inclusive, progressive and productive domain. The fundamental conflict between the two warring sides primarily lies in this oppositional attitude. Added to that, the desire to control academic administration, to manoeuvre various windows of appointment, to puppet student politics etc. are the main causes for this unbending attitude.

The interest of higher education or students’ cause doesn’t figure even in the distant dreams of these authorities and administrators. However, it would be an incomplete observation if it remains unacknowledged that even in this atmosphere of an unholy political tug-ofwar, there were and still are a handful of vice chancellors who tried their level best to create conducive environment for effective teaching-learning and meaningful research in their respective institutions. But they are so awfully few in number that their sincere efforts go almost unnoticed in the midst of absurdities and inanities.

The intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has started showing initial signs of enhancing the number of such committed academics in the posts of vice chancellors in the state universities of West Bengal. Only time will tell whether these new VCs would be able to ensure administrative accountability and academic sanity in higher education, or the entire process will turn into the proverbial mountain in labour that ultimately produced a tiny mouse!

(The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of English, Rabindra Bharati University and can be reached at dd@rbu.ac.in)